1 entry from May 2016

So on Monday May 9 a guy reversed his car into mine while I was stationary. He said he would have his insurance company call me and sort it out.

By Friday May 14 I hadn't heard from them so I chased them up. Apparently he told his insurance we were equally at fault (?!) but after speaking with them they told me they would call me on Monday... the whole week passed. I called them this morning (Monday May 23) and they assured me they had called me (on May 17 according to their records... but they are not allowed to leave a message on machines... so how do I know if they called me???) and they posted a document to me because they can't proceed with the claim until they get a diagram from me.

They told me they would post another copy to me - as they also haven't received one back from the other party either.

I asked how two different diagrams of the incident would help them determine what happened any better than the two different descriptions they already have. Apparently, according to the RACV representative, the diagrams will clear it all up...

Seems like it does nothing more than draw the whole situation out as I continue to drive around with damage to my car.

Two weeks so far - it looks like it will be at least another two weeks before we get even close to repairs..

Not impressed RACV. I love your roadside assist but I'm glad I'm not insured by you.

UPDATE June 20

Apparently RACV have been trying to call me but are not allowed to leave messages - so it's their word against mine in that regard - they reviewed the "diagrams" and decided that, although the other party reversed into me while I was stopped, if I wasn't fully in the lane (because I couldn't complete my U turn because the other party suddenly stopped in front of me) then I was equally at fault and have to pay for my own repairs.

Clearly, RACV is trying to save a few dollars (the repair is minor) but on principle I am deeply offended by their petty attempt at blame shifting.

This will continue as I am not prepared to accept their decision.

UPDATE July 11

For those of you still following this saga... I sent a photo of the damage to my car which clearly shows that I must have completed the U turn in order for the other party to hit me where he did. I sent the photo to RACV on June 21. Since I have heard NOTHING back from them after 3 weeks - I have emailed them again.

Why am I having to be the pro-active party in trying to get this claim sorted? Or is it an intentional delay strategy on the part of RACV? I asked them in my email. The waiting continues...

UPDATE July 22

Frustrated.. I phoned RACV. I accidentally got put through to their SALES line within 30 seconds. When they realised I was trying to get through to CLAIMS I was put on hold for 15 minutes. The CLAIMS man said I needed to speak to LIABILITIES. He said to stay on the line and he would transfer me. After being on hold for another 5 minutes I was disconnected.

I have now emailed them and, if I don't get a reply, next step is the ombudsman.

UPDATE July 28

Well, as soon as I messaged the Ombudsman, the RACV suddenly called me! On Monday their Customer Service people phoned me to explain that someone from claims would call me asap. Sure enough, I got a call from claims the next day - they actually left MESSAGES on my answering machine asking me to call them back - even though they had repeatedly told me previously that they were not allowed to leave messages...

Things change once the Ombudsman is involved.

Then today they emailed me their official reply - the one I've been waiting for SINCE JUNE 21 - sticking to their original story that they are "holding both parties equally responsible for the damages to your vehicle and our clients vehicle."

Remember, their client REVERSED INTO ME WHILE I WAS STATIONARY.

Their sole basis for this claim is this:

ROAD SAFETY ROAD RULES 2009 - REG 38 Giving way when making a U-turn A driver making a U-turn must give way to all vehicles and pedestrians.

So, by their interpretation (and in order to avoid paying to have scratches buffed off my bumper bar) I should have "given way" to a vehicle heading in the same direction that I was heading in - after it stopped in the middle of the road and started to reverse.

Their argument is that I had "not completed the U Turn". However, I'm certain that, at the time of impact, I was parallel with the road - based on the point of impact to my car (as shown in the photo) and the fact that the other driver exited his vehicle and came up beside me and gave me his details WHILE OTHER VEHICLES DROVE PAST US ON MY RIGHT.

More to come.

UPDATE August 4

Since contacting the Ombudsman I have had calls and emails from several different Customer Relations departments of RACV (and their parent company www.IAG.com.au)

The latest email said they hope to have this matter resolved by end of business today.

UPDATE August 5

The "final decision" email was sent through today. As it turns out, the other party has chosen to LIE about what happened.. claiming that he was reversing into a parking space when I made a U turn and impacted the rear of his car.

The FACTS don't support that claim at all. There is no way my car could have hit a car in the left lane without completing my U turn, and the damage to his car was the side, not the rear. (Plus, if I was moving at ANY speed the damage to his car would have been much worse).

However, RACV instead of investigating or assessing the claim, simply put the thing in the too hard basket and through it out saying "I am unable to conclude that the incident was not in any way your fault or that our insured was solely responsible."

This will continue....

UPDATE August 31

Today I received a reply from the Financial Ombudsman Service of Victoria. I explained everything about the case, how RACV decided both drivers were equally "at fault" because of the other driver lying about what happened. But they are unable to help me.. why?

Because I am insured....

It doesn't take a magician to tell the deck is totally stacked against him.

"Why we cannot consider the disputeFOS is only able to consider a dispute about another person’s insurance company if all of the following requirements are met:1. The motor vehicle you were driving has to be uninsured when you had the accident.2. You must request that RACV pay for the damage caused to your motor vehicle by its insured. The cost of repairs to your motor vehicle is below $5,000. 3. You must believe that the person insured with RACV was at fault for causing damage to the motor vehicle you were driving.4. The person insured with RACV must have lodged a claim with their insurer, which must not have been declined or withdrawn."